[PASSED] Sustainable Forest Management

[Mousebumples]

Sustainable Forest Management
Category: Environmental
Industry: Logging

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the forestry industry is a major source of income for many states;

ACKNOWLEDGING that each state has the right and responsibility to utilize its natural resources for the betterment of its people;

However,

CONCERNED by the widespread environmental damage caused by deforestation;

FURTHER CONCERNED by the effects such damage has on other states;

BELIEVING these effects to be, in part:
a) Increases in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
b) Displacements of indigenous life forms from their natural habitat;
c) Rise of temperatures in cleared areas;
d) Soil erosion and sterilization;

DISMAYED that foreign states have no recourse to protect their own environment from such effects;

Hereby,

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to
a) Track deforestation;
b) Create guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting;
c) Establish standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes;
d) Identify,
i) Areas which are the most environmentally sensitive and provide recommendations for their protection,
ii) Areas best suited for harvesting;
e) Develop recommendations for the reforestation of previously cleared land;

URGES all states to set aside a portion of their extant forest for conservation, that the such forest, or forests, be as large, and its boundaries as uniform as possible, and be in the most environmentally sensitive areas;

REQUIRES that before the commencement of logging operations, a proposal be submitted, by the state or states affected, to, and approved by, the WAFC detailing plans:
a) Which clearly define the area to be harvested;
b) To minimize soil degradation and damage to the biodiversity of the area;
c) For the revitalization of the forest upon completion, taking into consideration the rejuvenation of the ecosystem and long term health, or, if the area is to be developed for some other purpose include:
i) Such development plans outlining the intent and purpose and area to be used;
ii) A timetable as to the anticipated start and completion of said development;
iii) Intentions for areas cleared but not part of the subsequent development;

AUTHORIZES the WAFC to provide funds, in the form of a grant or loan, on a case by case basis for the cost involved in revitalization efforts;

EXEMPTS wood taken for personal use and which is not sold or traded for profit.

ALLOWS for the felling of trees beyond the established regulations if the trees are diseased or in the event of some other emergency which requires it;

STRONGLY URGES states to avoid harvesting trees near waterways and coastlines;

ENCOURAGES that areas damaged by acts of nature, or cleared prior to the passage of this resolution, be reforested;

CALLS UPON able states to lend aid and assistance to neighboring states which may need it.

Sustainable Forest Management
Category: Environmental
Industry: Logging

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the forestry industry is a major source of income for many states;

ACKNOWLEDGING that each state has the right and responsibility to utilize its natural resources for the betterment of its people;

However,

CONCERNED by the widespread environmental damage caused by deforestation;

FURTHER CONCERNED by the effects such damage has on other states;

BELIEVING these effects to be, in part:
a) Increases in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
b) Displacements of indigenous life forms from their natural habitat;
c) Rise of temperatures in cleared areas;
d) Soil erosion and sterilization;

DISMAYED that foreign states have no recourse to protect their own environment from such effects;

Hereby,

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to
a) Track deforestation;
b) Create guidelines for sustainable forest harvesting;
c) Establish standards specific to each nation to limit the impact of forest harvesting processes;
d) Identify,
i) Areas which are the most environmentally sensitive and provide recommendations for their protection,
ii) Areas best suited for harvesting;
e) Develop recommendations for the reforestation of previously cleared land;

URGES all states to set aside a portion of their extant forest for conservation, that the such forest, or forests, be as large, and its boundaries as uniform as possible, and be in the most environmentally sensitive areas;

FURTHER REQUIRES that
a) For every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;
b) The sapling be of a species native to that area or of the same variety harvested;
c) Such saplings be replanted with regard to the natural order of the landscape;
d) Areas, in whole or in part, designated for development, and which are subsequently not, be reforested;

AUTHORIZES the WAFC to provide funds, in the form of a grant or loan, on a case by case basis for the cost involved in replanting;

EXEMPTS wood taken for personal use and which is not sold or traded for profit.

ALLOWS for the felling of trees beyond the established regulations if the trees are diseased or in the event of some other emergency which requires it;

FURTHER ALLOWS states to clear forest area for development but must clearly define the area so designated and must start development of the cleared area within one year of clearing;

STRONGLY URGES states to avoid harvesting trees near waterways and coastlines;

ENCOURAGES that areas damaged by acts of nature be replanted;

FURTHER ENCOURAGES states to reforest areas cleared prior to passage of this resolution;

CALLS UPON able states to lend aid and assistance to neighboring states which may need it.

Sustainable Forest Management
Category: Environmental
Industry: Woodchipping

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the forestry industry is a major source of income for many states;

ACKNOWLEDGING that each state has the right and responsibility to utilize its natural resources for the betterment of its people;

However,

CONCERNED by the widespread environmental damage caused by deforestation;

FURTHER CONCERNED by the effects such damage has on other states;

BELIEVING these effects to be, in part:
a) Increases in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
b) Displacements of indigenous life forms from their natural habitat;
c) Rise of temperatures in cleared areas;
d) Soil erosion and sterilization;

DISMAYED that foreign states have no recourse to protect their own environment from such effects;

Hereby,

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to
a) Track deforestation;
b) Establish for each state minimum requirements for sustainable forest harvesting;
c) Establish recommendations for reforestation of previously cleared land;

REQUIRES all states must set aside at least 10% of their extant forest for conservation and that the such forest, or forests, be as large, and its boundaries as uniform as possible;

URGES that such forests be in the most environmentally sensitive areas;

FURTHER REQUIRES that
a) For every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;
b) The sapling be of a species native to that area or of the same variety harvested;
c) Such saplings be replanted with regard to the natural order of the landscape;
d) Areas, in whole or in part, designated for development, and which are subsequently not, be reforested;

AUTHORIZES the WAFC to provide funds, in the form of a grant or loan, as needed for the cost involved in replanting;

ALLOWS for the felling of trees beyond the established regulations if the tree is diseased or in the event of some other emergency which requires it;

FURTHER ALLOWS states to clear forest area for development but must clearly define the area so designated and must start development of the cleared area within one year of clearing;

STRONGLY URGES states to avoid harvesting trees near waterways and coastlines;

ENCOURAGES that areas damaged by acts of nature be replanted;

FURTHER ENCOURAGES states to replant forest areas cleared prior to passage of this resolution;

CALLS UPON able states to lend aid and assistance to neighboring states which may need it.

On Deforestion
Category: Environmental
Industry: Woodchipping

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the forestry industry is a major source of income for many states;

ACKNOWLEDGING that each state has the right and responsibility to utilize its natural resources for the betterment of its people;

APPALLED BY the widespread environmental damage caused by deforestation;

OBSERVING the effects such damage has on other states;

BELIEVING these effects to be, in part:
a) An increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas;
b) Displacement of indigenous life forms from their natural habitat, leading to change in behavior and ranging patterns and extinctions;
c) Rise of temperatures in cleared areas, leading to changing weather patterns;
d) Soil erosion, leading to a disruption in the ecosystem where the soil settles, an increase in the chances of major flooding, and the contamination of drinking water;
e) Sterilization of the soil, greatly reducing the ability to recover that area and so reduce or eliminate the above and other adverse environmental effects;

DISMAYED that foreign states have no recourse to protect their own environment from such effects;

Hereby enacts the following:

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to track deforestation and enforce compliance of World Assembly forestry mandates;

REQUIRES all states must set aside at least 10% of their forest for conservation and that the such forest, or forests, be as large, and its boundaries as uniform as possible;

URGES that such forests be created in the most environmentally sensitive areas;

REQUIRES that no more than 2% of a states forest be harvested each year;

FURTHER REQUIRES that for every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;

STRONGLY URGES that the sapling be of a species native to that area;

AUTHORIZES the World Assembly to pay for up to half of the cost involved in replanting, provided that the state allows WA inspectors to observe all aspects of its forestry industry;

ALLOWS for the felling of trees beyond the annual limit if the tree is diseased or in the event of some other emergency which requires it, in such an event, the state is required to submit a full report to the WAFC and the replanting of felled trees;

REQUIRES that states allow random, unannounced audits and site inspections by the WAFC, frequency to be determined by level of compliance;

ALLOWS states to clear forest area for development but must clearly define the area so designated and must start development of the cleared area within one year of clearing, such clearing shall not count against the total allowed and, though encouraged, no replanting is required, unless the site is not developed;

FURTHER ALLOWS that acts of nature, which may damage or destroy forestland, will not count against a state;

ENCOURAGES that such damaged areas be replanted;

PROVIDES that this resolution shall not apply to individual trees in already developed areas;

URGES states to avoid harvesting trees near waterways and coastlines;

ENCOURAGES states to replant forest areas cleared prior to passage of this resolution;

CALLS UPON able states to lend aid and assistance to neighboring states which may need it.

Giving this one another go.
As always, advice, suggestions, and abuse is welcome.

[Snefaldia]

The States-Federation approves of this draft. We nevertheless have some suggestions:

1. Formatting. Could you perhaps condense the operative clauses into numbered or lettered groups? I'm finding it hard to parse the list of BIG CAPITAL WORDS and refer to the appropriate one.

2. Regarding the replanting of trees; we believe it would be wise to include a caveat "either a tree native to the area or or the same variety previously harvested." Furthermore, it might be advantageous to include a line along the lines of "replant trees with regard to the natural order of the landscape." During the 1970s in Snefaldia replanting largely consisted of planting rows and rows of identical trees, technically fulfilling legal requirements but creating a strange, unnatural effect.

Also, it should be "no more than 2% of a states' forest be harvested each year."

Maj. Primua Tarhuntamanapa
Charge d'Affaires

[Hakio]

1. Formatting. Could you perhaps condense the operative clauses into numbered or lettered groups? I'm finding it hard to parse the list of BIG CAPITAL WORDS and refer to the appropriate one.

For example...

BELIEVING these effects to be, in part:

1. An increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas;
2. Displacement of indigenous life forms from their natural habitat, leading to change in behavior and ranging patterns and extinctions;
3. Rise of temperatures in cleared areas, leading to changing weather patterns;
4. Soil erosion, leading to a disruption in the ecosystem where the soil settles, an increase in the chances of major flooding, and the contamination of drinking water;
5. Sterilization of the soil, greatly reducing the ability to recover that area and so reduce or eliminate the above and other adverse environmental effects;

Just in case you needed help with the list formatting.

[Bears Armed]

[OOC: seen, will comment tomorrow or the day after... but seeing some problems...]

[Dendodgia]

2% seems very restrictive. Sure, 2% of the world's forests, or 2% of a heavily-forested country like Dendodgia, is fine; plenty of wood available, but also lots of forest left over. Restricting heavily-wooded nations is an excellent idea.

However, this will greatly impact the foresting industry of nations with smaller forests; a nation with only a few trees would suffer from a severe lack of wood if they could only harvest 2% of that area. Indeed, with sustainable practices, it is perfectly possible for up to 20% of a forest to be removed and replanted without having any statistically-significant long-term effects. I'd therefore suggest a set of thresholds, or otherwise allow the WAFC to designate a maximum area that can be harvested per year.

The one-year period for development seems overly restrictive, too. Planning can take a long time, and it may be more practical to clear a larger area of forest than can be developed in such a short time. I'd suggest extending the limit to three years, or at least allow it to be extended by application to the WAFC.

Submitting a full report for every diseased tree felled seems like needless bureaucracy; it is this delegation's opinion that such bureaucracy would clog up the WA, and that a report is only necessary if the diseased trees constitute a significant portion of the local population.

Also, how are practices like coppicing affected? These restrictions may well result in an increase in such practices, which are only sustainable in small amounts, and which could lead to a sharp decline in biodiversity.

[Araraukar]

Did you read the debate on the previous couple of attempts at this?

[Hakio]

By the way, "change in weather patterns" can be summarized by "climate change" since the overall trend in temperatures is called "climate".

[Cardoness]

Thank you for the feedback! Keep it coming. I will be revising this draft in the next couple of days.

The States-Federation approves of this draft. We nevertheless have some suggestions:

1. Formatting. Could you perhaps condense the operative clauses into numbered or lettered groups? I'm finding it hard to parse the list of BIG CAPITAL WORDS and refer to the appropriate one.

2. Regarding the replanting of trees; we believe it would be wise to include a caveat "either a tree native to the area or or the same variety previously harvested." Furthermore, it might be advantageous to include a line along the lines of "replant trees with regard to the natural order of the landscape." During the 1970s in Snefaldia replanting largely consisted of planting rows and rows of identical trees, technically fulfilling legal requirements but creating a strange, unnatural effect.

Also, it should be "no more than 2% of a states' forest be harvested each year."

Maj. Primua Tarhuntamanapa
Charge d'Affaires

Thank you for the suggestions, I will include them in the next draft.

[OOC: seen, will comment tomorrow or the day after... but seeing some problems...]

I await your thoughts. In fact, your opinion is most highly sought on this matter.

2% seems very restrictive. Sure, 2% of the world's forests, or 2% of a heavily-forested country like Dendodgia, is fine; plenty of wood available, but also lots of forest left over. Restricting heavily-wooded nations is an excellent idea.

However, this will greatly impact the foresting industry of nations with smaller forests; a nation with only a few trees would suffer from a severe lack of wood if they could only harvest 2% of that area. Indeed, with sustainable practices, it is perfectly possible for up to 20% of a forest to be removed and replanted without having any statistically-significant long-term effects. I'd therefore suggest a set of thresholds, or otherwise allow the WAFC to designate a maximum area that can be harvested per year.

The one-year period for development seems overly restrictive, too. Planning can take a long time, and it may be more practical to clear a larger area of forest than can be developed in such a short time. I'd suggest extending the limit to three years, or at least allow it to be extended by application to the WAFC.

Submitting a full report for every diseased tree felled seems like needless bureaucracy; it is this delegation's opinion that such bureaucracy would clog up the WA, and that a report is only necessary if the diseased trees constitute a significant portion of the local population.

Also, how are practices like coppicing affected? These restrictions may well result in an increase in such practices, which are only sustainable in small amounts, and which could lead to a sharp decline in biodiversity.

Some very good ideas. I will take them into consideration when doing my next draft.

Did you read the debate on the previous couple of attempts at this?

One of those attempts was mine. I am also aware of GAR #261, Rainforest Protection Act, and its repeal. I did read those resolutions, skim the debates, and plan to do a more indepth study in the near future (read tomorrow or day after). I believe I will find points there that will allow me to avoid the pitfalls of 261. As for this draft, it is in the same rough shape it was in when I took my sabbatical. If I remember right, in that debate I was getting hammered by a hallway decoration wanting IC proof that what my proposal said was true in posts that were half a page long.

By the way, "change in weather patterns" can be summarized by "climate change" since the overall trend in temperatures is called "climate".

I will take this and your other comment under advisement.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad is very open to addressing environmental concerns, as this assembly has a criminal lack of regulation in this regard. However, this draft needs some serious work."

On Deforestion

This name lacks any creativity and I have only a vague idea of what the draft is actually about based on the title. A good title should give me some picture of what the draft is trying to accomplish. Perhaps, "sustainable forest management" would suffice?

UNDERSTANDING that the forestry industry is a major source of income for many states;

ACKNOWLEDGING that each state has the right and responsibility to utilize its natural resources for the betterment of its people;

There needs to be some transition between the above clauses and the following clause. Might I suggest replacing the "appalled" clause with "concerned, however, by the potential for widespread environmental damage caused by deforestation;

APPALLED BY the widespread environmental damage caused by deforestation;

OBSERVING the effects such damage has on other states;

Observing may not be the word to use here. "Concerned further by the effects such damage may have on other states;" sounds better to me.

BELIEVING these effects to be, in part:
a) An increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas;
b) Displacement of indigenous life forms from their natural habitat, leading to change in behavior and ranging patterns and extinctions;
c) Rise of temperatures in cleared areas, leading to changing weather patterns;
d) Soil erosion, leading to a disruption in the ecosystem where the soil settles, an increase in the chances of major flooding, and the contamination of drinking water;
e) Sterilization of the soil, greatly reducing the ability to recover that area and so reduce or eliminate the above and other adverse environmental effects;

This reads very awkwardly. "Believing these effects to be, in part, an increase in the levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas;" makes no sense. Furthermore, the General Assembly has an impact on more than one planet, and therefore, I would advise that you pluralize your points. "Believing these effects to be, in part: increases in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, displacements of indigenous life forms ..."

Hereby enacts the following:

This clause makes no sense. "The World Assembly, hereby enacts the following: creates ..." General Assembly resolutions should read as one sentence. If you want to stick with the operative clause style you've used below, this clause needs to be changed simply to "hereby."

CREATES the World Assembly Forest Commission (WAFC) to track deforestation and enforce compliance of World Assembly forestry mandates;

This needs to clarified, and its mandate should include some more specifics on how it will help member nations reforest or afforest areas devastated by logging.

REQUIRES all states must set aside at least 10% of their forest for conservation and that the such forest, or forests, be as large, and its boundaries as uniform as possible;

10% is a very arbitrary number - why 10%?

REQUIRES that no more than 2% of a states forest be harvested each year;

Again, why 2%? From where did you derive this figure.

FURTHER REQUIRES that for every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;

This is too specific. Instead, I would suggest you address broader reforestation measures. While I'm sure Captain Earth and Arbor Day fans all around the Multiverse would find your current requirement suitable, it's simply to narrow. A resolution on deforestation needs to include comprehensive reforestation and afforestation measures, and you should include the WAFC's duties to reflect that.

STRONGLY URGES that the sapling be of a species native to that area;

If you're going to require that a sapling be planted at all, then it makes no sense for you to only urge that a sapling of a similar species be planted. Mandate it instead.

AUTHORIZES the World Assembly to pay for up to half of the cost involved in replanting, provided that the state allows WA inspectors to observe all aspects of its forestry industry;

This is arbitrary. Perhaps expanding the WAFC's mandate to include providing member nations with the necessary funds to carry out its mandates, when necessary. Because this currently fails to help poor nations that rely on logging as a source of income and would not be able to afford such measures.

ALLOWS for the felling of trees beyond the annual limit if the tree is diseased or in the event of some other emergency which requires it, in such an event, the state is required to submit a full report to the WAFC and the replanting of felled trees;

REQUIRES that states allow random, unannounced audits and site inspections by the WAFC, frequency to be determined by level of compliance;

This clause assumes compliance is optional. It's not. I'm not opposed to inspections by the WAFC, but base it on other, more relevant factors.

ALLOWS states to clear forest area for development but must clearly define the area so designated and must start development of the cleared area within one year of clearing, such clearing shall not count against the total allowed and, though encouraged, no replanting is required, unless the site is not developed;

This clause is a grammatical nightmare.

FURTHER ALLOWS that acts of nature, which may damage or destroy forestland, will not count against a state;

The verb "allows" make little sense in this context. Perhaps "clarifies?"

ENCOURAGES that such damaged areas be replanted;

This type of measure should be included in a broader reforestation mandate that's determined by the WAFC.

PROVIDES that this resolution shall not apply to individual trees in already developed areas;

What does this even mean? I'm afraid you'll need to clarify.

ENCOURAGES states to replant forest areas cleared prior to passage of this resolution;

Again, a more general, yet comprehensive, reforestation mandate would eliminate the need for the disjointed inclusion of these types of clauses throughout your resolution.

All in all, this proposal needs some serious grammatical and formatting work. And the content is focused specifically on replanting saplings, which is too narrow to be considered good policy. I'll provide some specific content suggestions soon, but this one needs some work. All in all, I support the idea though and I wish you the best of luck.

[Bears Armed Mission]

“Hr’rmm.
“Well, the potential problems involved in specifying particular percentages for woodland and in instituting inspection by a WA agency even though compliance would actually have to be enforced through the nations’ legal systems have already been mentioned by other people, but there are three furrther potential problems with this draft that I think needed to be pointed out. Firstly, this section”

REQUIRES all states must set aside at least 10% of their forest for conservation and that the such forest, or forests, be as large, and its boundaries as uniform as possible;

URGES that such forests be created in the most environmentally sensitive areas;

“does not take into account the possibility that a member nation’s “most environmentally sensitive areas” might actually be occupied already by ecosystems that are rarer and therefore quite possibly more important than new-growth forests, or that they might be home to rare species whose presence there would not survive the planting of new forests.”

“Secondly, this clause”

FURTHER REQUIRES that for every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;

“is rrather clawless without a rrequirement that those saplings be not only planted but also adequately nurtured as well… but if one tries to insist that the company or agency doing the felling must be responsible for that nurturing then there’s the problem of companies or agencies ceasing to deal with, and any other alternatives would be heading further into micro-management. Also, this clause ignores the fact that some systems of woodland management actually require thinning-out the stocks of trees at least once per cycle…”

“And also, thirdly, this clause”

ALLOWS states to clear forest area for development but must clearly define the area so designated and must start development of the cleared area within one year of clearing, such clearing shall not count against the total allowed and, though encouraged, no replanting is required, unless the site is not developed;

“currently contains a major loophole in that it does not explicitly limit the clearance possible to the area that is rreally needed for that development: Under the present wording a nation would actually be arguably still in compliance if, for example, it was only going to build on an area of one square mile but designated an area of eight miles radius around that inner core for clearance as well…”


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Abacathea]

[OOC: seen, will comment tomorrow or the day after... but seeing some problems...]

Tried to do a draft on something similar myself not too long ago, I'll send you the thread link in a sec so you can see some of the issues raised if you'd like? Otherwise, I share Bears sentiment.

[Cardoness]

New draft and title.

I tried to take into account many of the suggestions given. I axed the 2% requirement, cut the REQUIRES clauses into a more manageable group, slashed a number of clauses from the text, and burned...well, something. Some things I left in is the 10% minimum for forest conservation. Yes, it is a completely arbitrary number. The problem I run into is, it's toothless without it. Otherwise, some state will declare some sacred grove protected and be done with it. I considered having the WAFC set some sort of guideline but couldn't really think of wording that didn't come across as overbearing, stupid, or both. I am still open to ideas on it. Also, it was never my intention, Ambassador SouthWoods, to suggest that new forest be planted then declared protected, though that is an option. Rather that already existing forest be protected. I hope this draft clears that up. As to the scope of this legislation, it's intent is to prevent the damages from future deforestation rather than cleaning up the mess already made. I am, of course, open to expanding it's mandate and will be giving it a lot of thought, for now this second draft is keeping to the original intent.

If there is anything you think I may have overlooked or have any other questions please let me know.

[Cardoness]

Bringing this back to the attention of the Ambassadors.

I have decided to keep this resolution focused on deforesting due to the forestry industry. I am considering other resolutions to address issues such as deforestation due to farming/mining, as well as reforestation. However, attempting to do both was not working for me. I couldn't write a draft I was happy with. I know that the WAFC section of this draft still needs some work, I have some ideas but wanted to open it up to the floor to get some others from the members.

[King Avalon]

I like the idea but it may need a bit more work. I'd like to repeat the past suggestions of improvement stated by those who posted before me.

[Cardoness]

New draft.

Changes made:
1. Added to the CREATES section to expand and specify the mandate of the WAFC.
2. Removed the requirement that 10% of a nations forests be set aside.
3. Added an EXEMPTS clause to allow for wood to be taken for personal use.

I bring this back to the attention of the Ambassadors.

[Cardoness]

As I have gotten generally positive reviews with some helpful advice on improvements that could be made, believing I have made such improvements that are in keeping with my aim in this proposal, and seeing as I have not gotten any further feedback, I have decided to submit a test balloon. This will not have a TG campaign (unless it is close at the wire), it is just to see what kind of support it has and hopefully spark some interest in further debate. Assuming it does not make it through, I am willing to entertain further ideas for changes to be made.

Edit: Requesting that it be pulled so it can be resubmitted. Upon review I discovered some errors that need to be corrected. That's what I get for making my last edit from an older copy while half asleep. The draft in this thread is good, or at least what I intended.

[Ratateague]

Would love to see this bill come to pass. Although, I am of the persuasion that a forest is not merely defined by its trees. It would be nice to see some acknowledgement of that in the form of promotion of soil health, or some reintroduction of the most crucial native wildlife. A forest could be cleared and polluted, but without a minimal effort of clean-up, repopulating it may prove futile. Likewise, if there are no pollinators, seed dispersers, decomposers/detritivores, or predators to keep nut/seed-eaters or burrowers in check, that could also become an obstacle in restoration.

Also, the way it is currently written may make deter some from reading it fully, as it looks deceptively lengthy, considering the content. You may want to consider truncating or combining some of the clauses. Such as these two:

a) For every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;
b) The sapling be of a species native to that area or of the same variety harvested;

This could be changed to read something like "For each tree harvested, a sapling that is native to the area, be planted in the same vicinity"
(In consolidating those clauses, I realized that if a tree of every life stage were to be counted as a fully-fledged tree, it might create an over-representation of the species, leading to an unnecessary amount of work.)

[Separatist Peoples]

"I see little evidence to support the idea that these requirements:

FURTHER REQUIRES that
a) For every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;
b) The sapling be of a species native to that area or of the same variety harvested;
c) Such saplings be replanted with regard to the natural order of the landscape;
d) Areas, in whole or in part, designated for development, and which are subsequently not, be reforested;

are at all feasible. Planting replacement saplings could very well be an inefficient and ineffective method of restoring a forested area. Come to think of it, I can think of many situations where that is the case."

[Draica]

Draica's wizard representative stands up.

"Magic can complete all these things, thus this is not needed. Opposed."

[Ardchoille]

Edit: Requesting that it be pulled so it can be resubmitted. Upon review I discovered some errors that need to be corrected. That's what I get for making my last edit from an older copy while half asleep. The draft in this thread is good, or at least what I intended.

Done, but please take note when bribing WA mods that we are particularly fond of almond Spekulaas and that there are now two more of us.

[Cardoness]

Edit: Requesting that it be pulled so it can be resubmitted. Upon review I discovered some errors that need to be corrected. That's what I get for making my last edit from an older copy while half asleep. The draft in this thread is good, or at least what I intended.

Done, but please take note when bribing WA mods that we are particularly fond of almond Spekulaas and that there are now two more of us.

Thank you, and I will keep that in mind for future bribes gifts.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: To be honest, I don't get why resolutions in this subcategory are always obsessed with bizarrely restrictive reforestation mandates. The overall goal should be sustainable forest management, however that is achieved. Replanting trees is a good idea. It is not the only idea.

[Cardoness]

OOC: To be honest, I don't get why resolutions in this subcategory are always obsessed with bizarrely restrictive reforestation mandates. The overall goal should be sustainable forest management, however that is achieved. Replanting trees is a good idea. It is not the only idea.

I thank the Ambassador for bringing this to our attention. You are, of course, correct. I believe I have found a way to achieve my objective while allowing for many different methods of reforestation.

Would love to see this bill come to pass. Although, I am of the persuasion that a forest is not merely defined by its trees. It would be nice to see some acknowledgement of that in the form of promotion of soil health, or some reintroduction of the most crucial native wildlife. A forest could be cleared and polluted, but without a minimal effort of clean-up, repopulating it may prove futile. Likewise, if there are no pollinators, seed dispersers, decomposers/detritivores, or predators to keep nut/seed-eaters or burrowers in check, that could also become an obstacle in restoration.

Also, the way it is currently written may make deter some from reading it fully, as it looks deceptively lengthy, considering the content. You may want to consider truncating or combining some of the clauses. Such as these two:

a) For every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;
b) The sapling be of a species native to that area or of the same variety harvested;

This could be changed to read something like "For each tree harvested, a sapling that is native to the area, be planted in the same vicinity"
(In consolidating those clauses, I realized that if a tree of every life stage were to be counted as a fully-fledged tree, it might create an over-representation of the species, leading to an unnecessary amount of work.)

"I see little evidence to support the idea that these requirements:

FURTHER REQUIRES that
a) For every tree harvested, a sapling be planted in the same area;
b) The sapling be of a species native to that area or of the same variety harvested;
c) Such saplings be replanted with regard to the natural order of the landscape;
d) Areas, in whole or in part, designated for development, and which are subsequently not, be reforested;

are at all feasible. Planting replacement saplings could very well be an inefficient and ineffective method of restoring a forested area. Come to think of it, I can think of many situations where that is the case."

I trust this has been resolved to your satisfaction?

"Magic can complete all these things, thus this is not needed. Opposed."

Ah, but not all nations have such abilities available to them. It is a vast and diverse multiverse we live in.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I see little evidence to support the idea that these requirements:



are at all feasible. Planting replacement saplings could very well be an inefficient and ineffective method of restoring a forested area. Come to think of it, I can think of many situations where that is the case."

I trust this has been resolved to your satisfaction?

"Actually, yes. And I didn't even need to dip into environmental jargon!"

[Cardoness]

This has been submitted for almost a day now and I have not gotten any feedback. That being the case, I am going to write a campaign TG but will check back here before sending it out. Otherwise, a huge thank you to everyone who commented on this proposal, both here and the last time I brought this up. It helped me iron this thing out and I appreciate it tremendously!